Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1306.2604

Effects of Publications in Proceedings on the Measure of the Core Size of Coauthors

Janusz Miśkiewicz
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Coauthors (CA) of a "lead investigator" (LI) can receive a rank (r) according to their "importance" in having published joint publications with the LI. It is commonly accepted, without any proof, that publications in peer review journals and e.g. conference proceedings do not have the same "value" in a CV. Same for papers contributed to encyclopedia and book chapters. It is here examined whether the relationship between the number (J) of publications of some scientist with her/his coauthors, ranked according to their decreasing importance, i.e. $ J \propto 1/r^α $, as found by Ausloos, still holds if the overall publication list is broken into such specific types of publications. Several authors, with different careers, but mainly having worked in the field of statistical mechanics, are studied here to sort out answers to the questions. The exponent $α$ turns out to be weakly scientist dependent, only if the maximum value of J and r is large and is $\sim +1$ then. The $m_A$ core value, i.e. the core number of CAs, for proceedings only is about half of the total one, i.e. when all publications are counted. Contributions to the numerical values from both encyclopedia and book chapters are marginal. The role of a time span on $m_A$ is also examined in two cases in relation to career activity considerations. It can considered that the findings serve as a contrasting point of view on how to quantify an individual (publication) career as recently done by Petersen et al., here emphasizing the collaboration size and evolution, rather than a citation count, moreover specifying the type of publication. Through the various $m_A$'s one can distinguish different behavior patterns of a scientist publication with CAs.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Janusz Miśkiewicz. 2013-06-11. Effects of Publications in Proceedings on the Measure of the Core Size of Coauthors. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2013.06.027

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

greCAPTCHA: Assessing Understanding as Evidence of Research Authorship Under Generative AI

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Geospatial Metadata Improves Discoverability by Connecting Datasets Across Scientific Disciplines

Research data repositories are essential infrastructure for scientific inquiry and for ensuring that datasets follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. However, repository reuse depends on the quality and completeness of geospatial and thematic metadata, which researchers generally provide voluntarily. Given limited curation resources, it is unsurprising that even Harvard Dataverse, the world's largest general-purpose research repository, contains many incomplete metadata records. Missing fields represent lost information and reduce interoperability. We find that datasets with more missing metadata receive fewer downstream citations and have fewer resolvable connections to other datasets. The implications are particularly important for geospatial datasets: only 0.3% of research datasets include a bounding box, and most represent archival points rather than complete geographic shapes. Our analysis shows that geospatial metadata helps connect concepts across disciplines. After embedding Harvard Dataverse datasets in a metadata knowledge graph, we find that datasets are twice as likely to connect across scientific disciplines through shared geospatial metadata as through keywords. This suggests that geographic metadata is a more reliable basis for cross-disciplinary interoperability than keyword vocabularies, which often remain discipline-specific. We train and fine-tune a small language model using datasets from Harvard Dataverse. Through geospatial metadata enrichment, we increase the share of datasets from different disciplines connected through metadata elements from 58.5% to 63.2%.

cs.DL↗